Increasing dissatisfaction with politicians
New Zealanders are increasingly distrustful of politicians. And the poll figures emphatically show it. Just five months ago in May, researcher Dr Stephanie Worboys of the Maxim Institute researched the public’s “trust deficit” of Parliament.
Dr Worboys said “A Parliamentary survey published in 2023 found that public engagement with Parliament had “hit a new low” of 13%. The survey also found that only 36% believed that Parliament dealt with issues of importance to them. Additionally, only 43% believed that the views of everyday New Zealanders were represented in Parliament.”
Not surprisingly, the survey seemed to go unnoticed, or ignored, by mainstream media.
Other figures verified the strong trend. The parliamentary survey showed just 36 percent (one in three) of New Zealanders are strongly committed to voting. Or to put it another way, 64 percent couldn’t care less. They are afflicted with apathy.
The price of apathy
Apathy has always been a problem. Last century, Albert Einstein said “The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”
But long before that in ancient Greek BC times philosopher Plato rued “The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” To cite another quote, “Apathy’s a problem but who cares?”
We should, it’s the erosion of democracy.
Journalist and writer Amy Brooke cares
One person does care deeply is Amy Brooke of Nelson who is a regular contributor to the UK/Australian “Spectator” magazine: https://www.spectator.com.au/author/amy-brooke/ to the Australian “Quadrant” and to the Australian “News Weekly” as well as well as interviews with Rodney Hide on “Reality Check”. Radio: https://realitycheck.radio/replay/amy-brooke-authoress-nzs-liberal-policies-errant-church-leaders-christianity-history-favourite-novels-and-more/
While her first love is writing for children (she is the author of highly successful children’s books), another book of hers, The 100 Days Claiming Back New Zealand published over a decade ago, deals with “what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.”
Her blueprint for remedying the declining democracy and the subsequent apathy afflicting New Zealand’s political system, is based on Switzerland’s government, a strong form of democracy adopted over 170 years ago — tried and proven.
Reclaim Democracy, Swiss style
“Nothing can possibly rescue New Zealand from the on-going process of poor decision-making by our political parties, unless New Zealanders themselves take matters in hand,” she says.
“If we are to reclaim a genuine democracy, there is a very simple and highly achievable way way to do this – the 100 Days as practised in Switzerland,” she says.
How does the highly successful Swiss democracy work?
Switzerland is a direct democracy and alongside the usual voting rights accorded in democracies, the Swiss people can also stop politicians passing laws with which they disagree.
Click to view
Switzerland’s democracy was set up in 1848 when the country voted overwhelmingly on a new constitution.
“It is so simple, as so many great ideas are,” says Amy Brooke. A fundamental core is the insistence that all acts of parliament are subject to a Facultative Referendum.
“What this means is that parliamentary decisions become law in Switzerland only when a set period of 100 days has passed. However, within those 100 days, if 50,000 citizens demand that the ratification of proposed legislation be put to the whole country, because of concerns, a vote by the people then has to take place by way of a referendum,” she explains. The people make the final decision.
“The provision of 100 days scrutiny by the public — of all legislation passed by parliament – is the key to preserving a genuine democracy where the people of the country make the final decisions,” explains Amy Brooke.
Negative Voting
So why replace New Zealand’s current system with the Swiss model?
Amy Brooke doesn’t mince her words and concern. The New Zealand public has strongly trended to negative voting at elections.
“The reality is we have lost being a true democracy. In actual fact, our democratic freedoms now extend only to throwing out one political party or coalition when it’s seen as having done so much damage that it should be removed, to exchange it for another – which nobody now really believes is going to be any better.”
New Zealand is no longer a representative democracy. She gives as example when in 2009 the anti-family, anti-smacking legislation was enforced.
“It was instigated by a reputedly Marxist Green MP, Sue Bradford, supported by a heavily socialist and domineering Prime Minister Helen Clark and scandalously endorsed by National Party leader John Key telling his party members to do as they were told. Not one of the major parties’ so-called constituent MPs stood up to be counted and represent the public, when polls showed 85% of New Zealanders were opposed to this ominous and intrusive legislation.”
Amy Brooke exhorts New Zealanders to claim back their country. “Yes it can be done. And it’s not difficult for New Zealanders to say they’ve had enough, that they claim the right to make decisions that affect them.”
The Swiss claimed that right over 170 years ago. They have proved it works and it does so simply,” she adds.
Undemocratic
Amy Brooke says the public are well aware that political parties cannot be trusted, as reflected in the low faith the public has in politicians.
Would the Swiss system mean the end of political parties? “No. It would be unreasonable if individuals were not entitled to come together and on the basis of shared principles, form associations,” she says.
She cautions about likening the 100 Days Facultative Referendum initiative to a Citizens Initiated Referenda. “They are not the same thing. The latter is where a proposal arises and individuals lend their signature to it, to establish or to object to a particular law only. However, the 100 Days Facultative Referendum enables the people to stop in its tracks any legislation it sees as damaging.”
Under the 100 Days Facultative Referendum, the decision of the majority of public, is binding on government.
Rotating leadership
There are other aspects of the Swiss model that should appeal to the disenchanted New Zealand public. For example, the Swiss president (equivalent of our Prime Minister) is drawn from a Federal Council and the presidency rotates. After one year, he or she has to step down and the position usually then goes to the previous year’s Finance Minister – who then steps down in turn.
“Such a provision here would have stopped a Jacinda Ardern in her tracks. Or indeed an over-bearing Christopher Luxon, backing the discredited CO2 alarmist hoax- which is costing the country so much.”
The most successful democracy in the world, where the government respectfully refers to the electorate, i.e. voting public, as sovereign is Switzerland.
The fact that not the Swiss government, but the people of the country itself actually make the decisions, has brought this about.
Tony Orman, once a town and country planner, is now a part-time journalist and author. This article was first published HERE
10 comments:
This proposal will make things 100 times worse. A lot of issues aren't understood by the public, particularly economic issues. It always sounds convincing to put people before profits, to be kind, eliminate poverty etc etc, but schools and hospitals don't run just on good will. The Swiss understand that but Kiwis certainly don't.
A great thought but how, do you suggest, you bring it about? Turkeys ( in this case politicians) don’t vote for Xmas!
Maybe a Citizens Initiated Referendum or an appliction to a Senior Court for a Declaration of Inconsistency because laws cannot be interpreted consistently with NZ human rights would assist New Zealand to inject better democracy by use of the Swiss model of 100 days Facultative Referendum .
Our whole political system has become bogged down in political charades . Mr Luxon and National snubbing the Treaty Principles Bill, exhorting Zero carbon for NZ , ignoring a debate on the relevance of Treaty of Waitangi, resisting removal of Maori Electorate seats.
The electronic age would make Facultative Referendums as simple as putting a submission into the Select Committee and with good organisation possibly simpler and real democracy then determined .
LET a sustained and informative Facultative Referendum debate begin .
Over 90% of the Swiss population are educated and informed, socially responsible people who make rational decisions for the welfare of their country.
I won't make myself unpopular by replacing the 90% with another figure for NZ. But it would be a much lower one.
Once comparable - today chalk and cheese as nations,
Only works if you have a codified Constitution & a strong Bill of Rights of which we have neither.
The eternal battle is between the collectivists who support mob rule & are willing to abdicate responsibility for their lives to the govt for the promise of a security that can never be upheld & individualists that support the freedoms guaranteed under a Constitutional Republic, recognise that Democracy & Big govt is a lie & want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit without govt or societal interference.
Rule of Law only works if it applies to EVERYBODY, not just the majority & anything less is tyranny of the masses that soon devolves into the totalitarianism that we are starting to see now where the "greater good" is more important than individual freedom & liberty. Not for me...
I watched Bob McCoskrie talking about various scenarios where the NZ Media had misled us about quotes made by Donald Trump. With a media so distorting information the public wouldn't be able to provide informed choices.
Orman's bias is amply demonstrated by his use of examples - support for beating children, apparent dislike for Jacinda Adern (unspecified), climate change denial; he ticks lots of libertarian boxes. What he doesn't do is provide evidence that facultative referenda produce policy outcomes that are any better than just leaving the duly elected Government to get on with the business of governing. The reality is that referenda are actually a very bad way to make significant policy decisions. Most people simply don't have the ability to make sense of the issues and so vote at a visceral and emotive level ie badly. The BREXIT referendum is a perfect example of an ignorant population voting against their own best interests. Closer to home, can anybody say that MMP has improved the quality of our Governance? Yeah right. Yet that was approved by not one, but two referenda. So, if the political parties can't be trusted to govern, I say the people can be trusted even less.
Some very interesting comments. Amy is on the right track, just perhaps the wrong path. Have to agree with barend again, it only works when the vast majority of the population are smart. Let's face it the vast majority here are not. Throw in our large proportion of far left lunatic radicals and sensible policy would never get passed, but at least we could have stopped the vast majority of Arderns racist policies I suppose!!
Political parties are now rotten to the core and regular elections have become an equivalent to bread and circuses. Possibly a better solution would be to select by ballot a small cadre of people, filtered carefully for maturity, competency, achievement and character for a two term period of three years each term. This would ensure no forever members, and provide an overlapping term as junior member then senior member. Ensure all portfolios have one junior and one senior member. No-one acts alone to fight the bureaucrats. And make sure an upper house of similarly ballotted selectees get to oversee and approve all legislation. There are lots more factors here to include, but you get the idea. Make up the other provisions yourself.
Post a Comment